Should there be educational requirements for cops?

[ReeVo.uK]

It's dripping in irony. You're demanding they respect you, yet showing them no respect yourself.

Considering I don't respect people who don't treat other with respect, I think not. I respected them up until I was continually harassed throughout my youth despite being a law abiding citizen. Absolute joke.

 

[Gaidin109]

That is a major problem imo with the system. the whole, "hey i don't make the laws", yea you don't make them and you don't know them either, you just think you know them and then you use your own (poor) judgement to arrest people. What we have then is police who think that arresting people is just there part and then if we disagree we can take it up in the courts.

If going to court was not extortion based and full of conflict of interests then maybe that would not be so bad.

So i think they should have to learn and understand the law, instead they are taught about terrorism and how everyone is a terrorist and they have militarised the police. I have seen the police training. I know that they don't learn the law... oh that is for lawyers, we just arrest people and then make them pay fines and use extortion to get money from them. Thinking they are the law. makes me sick.

The Justice system is imperfect, that is a given, But the police are there to enforce the law, not make judgement on it. This is why, when you are arrested it is on suspicion of a crime, it is then for the CPS to decide whether the evidence is sufficent for a criminal prosecution and if that is the case then it passes to the Courts to decide on guilt.

Giving the Police the powers to pass judgement is dangerous and un-neccessary.
Having said that, I do think that the publics redress to unlawful arrest should be clarified and made more transparent.

 

[deus3x]

Firstly they need to grasp common sense and get over the power trip a lot of them are on.

 

[platypus]

Considering I don't respect people who don't treat other with respect, I think not. I respected them up until I was continually harassed throughout my youth despite being a law abiding citizen. Absolute joke.

No you're quite right, it wasn't ironic as I edited my statement.

 

[fizzle-187]

An education doesn't come with a guarantee of common sense, something I'd prefer to see when policing is involved.

I agree 100%. I have a friend who is very intelligent academically, however, his common sense is atrocious. He wouldn't be able to survive on the streets.

 

[Energize]

If you educate police they might actually realize that many laws they enforce are actually pointless and many crimes victimless which would be undesirable for the governments "police state by 2012" target so it's unlikely to become a requirement.

 

[semi-pro waster]

*** is blocked

If you mean the three letters ftw then yes, it's automatically blocked, there's no need in it whatsoever.

how about the police have to learn the law. not just think they are the law.

And what makes you say that the polcie do not have to "learn the law"? Most of the police that I've met have a pretty sound grounding in the sections that they are liable to use with any regularity - no-one knows all the law and no-one needs to, even lawyers will tend to only learn a relatively small and specialised segment of the law, if there is anything outwith their area of expertise (and even frequently within it) they will look it up.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Having said that, I do think that the publics redress to unlawful arrest should be clarified and made more transparent.

i agree.

Due to the nature of the "imperfect system" the police are in affect the judge, they might not be the legal judge, as in, they are not the same as a court judge. But they still pass a judgement whether or not to proceed with the arrest. As the laws are open to interpretation and are more often than not subjective. It is down to the police officer to make the decision based on his judgement.

So from the victim/criminals perspective. The only judge they see is the policeman.

The whole "guilty until proven innocent" should be "guilty because i said you are"

 

[semi-pro waster]

i agree.

Due to the nature of the "imperfect system" the police are in affect the judge, they might not be the legal judge, as in, they are not the same as a court judge. But they still pass a judgement whether or not to proceed with the arrest. As the laws are open to interpretation and are more often than not subjective. It is down to the police officer to make the decision based on his judgement.

So from the victim/criminals perspective. The only judge they see is the policeman.

The whole "guilty until proven innocent" should be "guilty because i said you are"

It's innocent until proven guilty unless we've had a massive change in the judicial underpinnings of our society and someone forgot to warn me again.

And the police are not in effect the judge, they can and do arrest people certainly but that's not the same thing. Of course they've got to make a judgement on whether to arrest someone - if you don't agree with that then please suggest a viable way for it to be otherwise?

 

[Orcish-Horde]

Educational requirements for cops would in the long run be counter productive. The requirement would prevent large sections of the community from being involved in the law and legal system. Just look at the court system the bulk of the UK population has no input into that system. Most of us are cut of from that part of the system and in turn that system has become unnecessary arcane, maybe even by design. By closing of law to a section of a community it slowly to them stops being their system of law. The same thing with the police, close them of from joining and it will slowly stop being their police force. If a degree was to become the precursor to joining the police it would mean that more than half the population would be forbidden to join the force. Them and us...

 

[Dolph]

It's innocent until proven guilty unless we've had a massive change in the judicial underpinnings of our society and someone forgot to warn me again.

And the police are not in effect the judge, they can and do arrest people certainly but that's not the same thing. Of course they've got to make a judgement on whether to arrest someone - if you don't agree with that then please suggest a viable way for it to be otherwise?

Section 59 of the police reform act 2002?

No judge or jury required for confiscation of vehicle.

There are other examples in the same act as well, and that's without going on to the various pieces of anti-terror legislation...

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Got to agree with Werewolf.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Section 59 of the police reform act 2002?

No judge or jury required for confiscation of vehicle.

There are other examples in the same act as well, and that's without going on to the various pieces of anti-terror legislation...

I should obviously have been much more specific and put in the usual caveats about exceptions, I was taking umbrage with the idea that "...from the victim/criminals perspective. The only judge they see is the policeman" which in the vast majority of cases where there is an arrestable offence is nonsense.